CART regularly makes claims that leave the public going "huh?".  That's because we're reading the wonky research that's recommending no new roads, higher gas taxes, increased investment in rail, and increased investment in public transit.  So here is our bibliography:

Highways and Transit: Leveling the Playing Field in Federal Transportation Policy

by Edward Beimborn and Robert Puentes, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, the Brookings Institution

Abstract: Federal transportation policy is essentially an unfair competition between highways and transit. Despite a number of reforms in the past decade, federal rules remain stacked against transit, and funding highway projects is far easier. This brief compares how new transit and highway programs are treated differently by federal legislation and policy and how those differences lead to an unlevel playing field, distorting good local planning, management, and decision making.

• Highways and Transit: Leveling the Playing Field in Federal Transportation Policy - 2003 - full - source

AASHTO 'Bottom Line' Reports

These reports from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials detail the trends that are going to affect our nation's transportation future.  They starkly lay out the impacts of investing - or not - in the various modes of transportation.

• Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report - 2002 - summary - full - source
•  Rail Passenger Report - 2002 - summary - source

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Study

Created by Congress in 2005, and completing it's work in 2008, this panel concluded that we need to take radical steps, including a +$.40/gallon gas tax, in order to fight the looming transportation infrastructure crisis.

Our Nation will need to put more emphasis on transit and intercity passenger rail and make them a priority for our country.  A cultural shift will need to take place across America to encourage our citizens to take transit or passenger rail when the option is given.  It is also important to increase the market share for freight rail, and to make significant increases in highway investment as part of developing a robust surface transportation network.

In addition to putting more money into the system, we also must create a system where investment is subject to benefit-cost analysis and performance-based outcomes.

• Final Report - 2008 - source - AP summary

Growing Cooler: the Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change

Carbon Dioxide emissions are growing.  They need to shrink.  Creating exotic fuels and more efficient automobiles might help, but even with California-grade gains in those areas across the country, we'll still be outstripped by the increasing VMTs (Vehicle Miles Travelled) caused by American urban sprawl.  In order to achieve real Carbon Dioxide emissions reductions, we have to adopt a more practical urban design which minimizes VMTs.  It lists all the collateral economic, environment, and social benefits of this design.  The policy implications are then explored.

• Growing Cooler - 2007 - executive summary - technical report - source

Light Rail Lanes versus Car Lanes

Two lanes of light rail carry the same number of rush hour passengers as sixteen lanes of freeway.

• Rail Transit Capacity - 1996 - pdf - source provides the 20,000 passengers/hour claim on page xvi
• Wikipedia's Light Rail Capacity article provides the reasoning for 2,400 passengers/hour on freeways.
• A Probabilistic Approach to Defining Freeway Capacity and Breakdown - 2000 - pdf is cited as a source, but not verified by this author.

Accepting those base figures, two lanes of light rail have equal capacity to 16.67 lanes of highways by straightforward division.

The True Cost of Gasoline

Gasoline is underpriced. This leads to over-utilization of the resource by consumers. A good sketch of this argument is available on the NY Times Freakonomics blog.

WSJ: Oil Production has a Limit

June 29th 2008 Wall Street Journal - the limit appears to be now:

Oil Exporters are Unable to Keep up with Demand

The world's top oil producers are proving unable to put more barrels on thirsty world markets despite sky-high prices, a shift that defies traditional market logic and looks set to continue.

Fresh data from the U.S. Department of Energy show the amount of petroleum products shipped by the world's top oil exporters fell 2.5% last year, despite a 57% increase in prices, a trend that appears to be holding true this year as well.

Nov 19th 2007 Wall Street Journal - Page 1, Column A

Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.

Well, they got the year wrong, but they're basically right. 

Since oil demand traditionally grows exponentially, we're likely to see an exponential growth in oil prices or an end to economic growth.  The article has also been discussed at The Oil Drum.

You can read either of these articles for free just by searching for their titles and finding other site's syndicated caches of them.

Wanted: Bridge EIS $20/bbl Oil Claim

CART points out that the bridges EIS was based on the assumption of oil at $20-$29 dollars per barrel.  I'm trying to find documentary proof of this claim, but so far I can't even find the Bridges EIS!  Any help?